I have greatly differing views about LotR to some. Dislike the books for being... so.... damned.... slow... Liked the movies, though much preferred the extended editions.And I am so glad they got rid of Tom Bombadil. That was some goofy sh*t even in a book about wizards and midgets fighting orcs and goblins.

It's understandable! It's not everyone's cup of tea. It's certainly not short and sweet like Hemmingway tends to make things. I appreciate the detail to the worlds Tolkien created to supplement the stories though. It's an impressive imagination and well thought out overall. But they are slow at times.

And yes, Bombadil was strange as hell and rather out of place IMO.

Didn't mean to get this thread off topic with the literature behind the films. So, on my flight back from Scotland to the United States recently, I watched "Horrible Bosses 2". And loved it every bit as much as the first one! Got a few looks from other passengers and my wife when I burst into laughter several times. But I really, really love watching anything with Jason Sudeikis and Charlie Day in tandem, Kevin Spacey, and Chris Pine.

Speaking of Jason Sudeikis and Charlie Day, if anyone hasn't watched the rom-com "Going the Distance", you should! It was pretty low key here in the US, but I thought it was one of the better movies the year it was released.

Inside Out, which is Pixar's film about emotions. It's absolutely superb. Oddly sad for a Disney film (think a feature length version of the beginning of UP). I definitely recommend checking it out.

I also watched The Village. Now, when I saw this at the cinema in 2004, I thought it was a bit meh. Given that I was only 17 then, I figured 28 year old me might have a different opinion so I watched it again. While, the traditional M Night twist is kinda weak, the rest of the film is very nicely done (there is a particular scene in the woods where people wearing yellow and red are beautifully contrast against the grey scenery which is superb). Honestly think if M Night wasn't so obsessed with having a twist ending he'd be far more respected as an artist.

Pretty underwhelmed. Firstly, they Star Trek 2'd us with the guy who would obviously be Blofeld being Blofeld. Not a twist to anyone who knows the Bond mythos really. And wouldn't work for someone who didn't anyway. Interesting they gave him that scar though.

The romance plot advanced way too fast. Comically so.

C's death was weak.

The DB11 isn't that nice looking. I preferred the DB9. Okay, that didn't really matter to the film, I just thought I'd mention it.

I felt like they had 50 little bits of plot. Films generally go for 1 or 2 plots for a reason. It just felt disjointed.

If this is Daniel Craig's Bond films done then that's fine. If they do another the ending is a complete waste of time. I didn't care for it, unless they are treating it as these 4 films we are seeing the whole career of 007 then I rather like it. It would be short and brutal. And I guess for a character like Bond it has to kill him or he has to get out. So yeah, my overall opinion is somewhat based on what the next Bond film is.

Was the alcohol consumption to prove a point about Bond being in love or am I reading too much into it? I felt like he drank more in this film than usual, and turned down the champagne when he is worrying about the woman more (I can't recall her name which says a lot about the plot). Bond is a junkie for a rush. Be it alcohol, driving a fast car or putting himself in the way of a terrorist threat etc.

As I complained about in Skyfall, I don't think they should swear at all. Minor gripe, and a bit of an odd thing for me, the sweariest man in most rooms, to dislike.

Title song was awful. That dude sings way too high pitched. One of my least favourite Bond themes.

Don't get me wrong, this isn't an awful film. It's a decent film. I'd rate it 2.5 or 3 stars if you want a metric. Not as enjoyable as some of the better Bond films, not a train wreck either.

Pretty underwhelmed. Firstly, they Star Trek 2'd us with the guy who would obviously be Blofeld being Blofeld. Not a twist to anyone who knows the Bond mythos really. And wouldn't work for someone who didn't anyway. Interesting they gave him that scar though.

The romance plot advanced way too fast. Comically so.

C's death was weak.

The DB11 isn't that nice looking. I preferred the DB9. Okay, that didn't really matter to the film, I just thought I'd mention it.

I felt like they had 50 little bits of plot. Films generally go for 1 or 2 plots for a reason. It just felt disjointed.

If this is Daniel Craig's Bond films done then that's fine. If they do another the ending is a complete waste of time. I didn't care for it, unless they are treating it as these 4 films we are seeing the whole career of 007 then I rather like it. It would be short and brutal. And I guess for a character like Bond it has to kill him or he has to get out. So yeah, my overall opinion is somewhat based on what the next Bond film is.

Was the alcohol consumption to prove a point about Bond being in love or am I reading too much into it? I felt like he drank more in this film than usual, and turned down the champagne when he is worrying about the woman more (I can't recall her name which says a lot about the plot). Bond is a junkie for a rush. Be it alcohol, driving a fast car or putting himself in the way of a terrorist threat etc.

As I complained about in Skyfall, I don't think they should swear at all. Minor gripe, and a bit of an odd thing for me, the sweariest man in most rooms, to dislike.

Title song was awful. That dude sings way too high pitched. One of my least favourite Bond themes.

Don't get me wrong, this isn't an awful film. It's a decent film. I'd rate it 2.5 or 3 stars if you want a metric. Not as enjoyable as some of the better Bond films, not a train wreck either.

Inside Out, which is Pixar's film about emotions. It's absolutely superb. Oddly sad for a Disney film (think a feature length version of the beginning of UP). I definitely recommend checking it out.

I also watched The Village. Now, when I saw this at the cinema in 2004, I thought it was a bit meh. Given that I was only 17 then, I figured 28 year old me might have a different opinion so I watched it again. While, the traditional M Night twist is kinda weak, the rest of the film is very nicely done (there is a particular scene in the woods where people wearing yellow and red are beautifully contrast against the grey scenery which is superb). Honestly think if M Night wasn't so obsessed with having a twist ending he'd be far more respected as an artist.

The first half of The Village is so promising but while the reveal is cleverly done, I feel like it takes away a lot of the fear and ruins the film somewhat.

Pretty underwhelmed. Firstly, they Star Trek 2'd us with the guy who would obviously be Blofeld being Blofeld. Not a twist to anyone who knows the Bond mythos really. And wouldn't work for someone who didn't anyway. Interesting they gave him that scar though.

The romance plot advanced way too fast. Comically so.

C's death was weak.

The DB11 isn't that nice looking. I preferred the DB9. Okay, that didn't really matter to the film, I just thought I'd mention it.

I felt like they had 50 little bits of plot. Films generally go for 1 or 2 plots for a reason. It just felt disjointed.

If this is Daniel Craig's Bond films done then that's fine. If they do another the ending is a complete waste of time. I didn't care for it, unless they are treating it as these 4 films we are seeing the whole career of 007 then I rather like it. It would be short and brutal. And I guess for a character like Bond it has to kill him or he has to get out. So yeah, my overall opinion is somewhat based on what the next Bond film is.

Was the alcohol consumption to prove a point about Bond being in love or am I reading too much into it? I felt like he drank more in this film than usual, and turned down the champagne when he is worrying about the woman more (I can't recall her name which says a lot about the plot). Bond is a junkie for a rush. Be it alcohol, driving a fast car or putting himself in the way of a terrorist threat etc.

As I complained about in Skyfall, I don't think they should swear at all. Minor gripe, and a bit of an odd thing for me, the sweariest man in most rooms, to dislike.

Title song was awful. That dude sings way too high pitched. One of my least favourite Bond themes.

Don't get me wrong, this isn't an awful film. It's a decent film. I'd rate it 2.5 or 3 stars if you want a metric. Not as enjoyable as some of the better Bond films, not a train wreck either.

Saw Spectre this weekend and I'm mostly in agreement

Spoiler (click to show)

C is the magnificently excellent Moriarty in Sherlock. Can't remember the actors name, but for sure he could have been given a bigger role and more room to display his super-villainy. It wasn't just that his death was a bit mundane, it's that the character was a glorified paper-pusher when it could have been much more.Blofeld, I reckon, stayed alive and got the scar because (depressingly) there's some future in which he escapes and generates a sequel. If they were going the 'seed the sequel' route, they might as well have gone the whole 'classic Bond' in which Blofeld gets away even though his projects and henchmen go 'kaboom'.

What I AM happy with is that they raised the issue of constant government surveillance, which is really a worrisome and topical issue. (If only the real-life spy agencies were as 'hands-on' instead of being over-reliant on intercepting everyone's communications.) However it's something where tension / urgency completely fails. Why worry about the system going online at a given time? If you can take it down, you can do that whether it's already gone live or not, there's no big "lives are at stake" scenario, if Q fails to do this on time it's no big deal.Overall, OK film, but I'd rate it as only the 3rd best of Craig's films

Oh, yes, the Bond girl character was shallow even by Bond girl standards (I also instantly forgot her name) and the title song really was awful.

Just seen The Man From U.N.C.L.E. and thoroughly enjoyed it. Nice that it was set back when the original was, good cast and along with Kingsman, good to get a bit of light relief in a spy film from all the gritty espionage thrillers we've been getting over the past 15 years of so.

_________________There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.

Just seen The Man From U.N.C.L.E. and thoroughly enjoyed it. Nice that it was set back when the original was, good cast and along with Kingsman, good to get a bit of light relief in a spy film from all the gritty espionage thrillers we've been getting over the past 15 years of so.

It was pretty nicely done. I got confused as hell at the twist though, because it kept getting hinted at, and then it was a thing, and then it wasn't. I did think that looks wise, Henry Cavill would made a superb Brosnan Bond too. In like 5 years when they remake Goldeneye (as Hollywood does), he'd be great in it.

The same day I saw UNCLE, I watched Spooks: The Greater Good (Yaarp). It was like they tried to condense the slow burner of a Spooks season into 90 minutes, and randomly brought in Kit Harrington to Kit Harrington it up a bit. It didn't really work all that well.

Creed, really enjoyed it. Thought it was going to be awful when I first heard about it but I was pleasantly suprised.

I really hoped this would be good, because the director Ryan Coogler, screenwriter Aaron Covington, and star Michael B Jordan were all involved in the excellent Fruitvale Station. They're all in their late 20s and represent part of the new generation of Hollywood coming through.

Creed, really enjoyed it. Thought it was going to be awful when I first heard about it but I was pleasantly suprised.

I really hoped this would be good, because the director Ryan Coogler, screenwriter Aaron Covington, and star Michael B Jordan were all involved in the excellent Fruitvale Station. They're all in their late 20s and represent part of the new generation of Hollywood coming through.

I had no idea that Coogler directed it until I got there... He managed to tie in the Rocky series very well and at the same time create an entirely new character/storyline.

So, can somebody tell me whether Jaina Solo is going to be in any of the next Star Wars films or if she only exists in comic book stores?

Hasn't that all been declared as non-canon? As its EU?

Having said that it seems JJ has borrowed quite a bit from the EU stuff (Kylo Ren-Ben Solo is quite clearly based heavily on Jacen Solo), and the fact that Rey is so strong in the force strongly points to her having Skywalker blood, so I think she may be JJ's version of "Jaina".

Just seen Grimsby.. What can I say.. I knew that with Sacha Baron Cohen it would be a certain type of movie but this was probably on the more extreme side even for him!As a grown man I almost felt bad for how much I laughed at certain parts. If you like his sort humour go see it. Don't go see it with 1. Your Children. 2. On a first date. 3. With your in-laws.

So, I've recently seen The Force Awakens. It's a superb film, even if you aren't a Star Wars fan. You'll enjoy it even more if you are though because of all the little references to the previous films (some are lines of dialogue referencing things, and others are reworked versions of iconic scenes).

Don't really get why the critics hate Batman v. Superman. I actually had 2nd thoughts about seeing it, but I gave it a shot last night, and it was very good. I won't spoil anything, but the one thing that bugged me, that is not a spoiler, is that Metropolis and Gotham City are neighboring cities, just across a bay from each other. I do have other issues with the film, but generally speaking, I'm happy I gave it a chance. Ben Affleck is a much better Batman than I thought he would be, especially after remembering how Matt Damon blew the role off as "easy" and "it's just Batman", which left me wondering if his best buddy Ben felt the same way. Thankfully, Ben clearly brought it, so a very happy Batman fan here.

_________________"No, there is no terrible way to win. There is only winning."Jean-Pierre Sarti

Don't really get why the critics hate Batman v. Superman. I actually had 2nd thoughts about seeing it, but I gave it a shot last night, and it was very good. I won't spoil anything, but the one thing that bugged me, that is not a spoiler, is that Metropolis and Gotham City are neighboring cities, just across a bay from each other. I do have other issues with the film, but generally speaking, I'm happy I gave it a chance. Ben Affleck is a much better Batman than I thought he would be, especially after remembering how Matt Damon blew the role off as "easy" and "it's just Batman", which left me wondering if his best buddy Ben felt the same way. Thankfully, Ben clearly brought it, so a very happy Batman fan here.

I liked it as well and thought Affleck was a decent Batman. For some reason I really like Cavill as Superman and thought Man of Steel was a superb superhero film, certainly better than most of the Marvel films. I realize I'm somewhat of a minority in my views but I left the theatre with a smile on my face after Batman v Superman.

Don't really get why the critics hate Batman v. Superman. I actually had 2nd thoughts about seeing it, but I gave it a shot last night, and it was very good. I won't spoil anything, but the one thing that bugged me, that is not a spoiler, is that Metropolis and Gotham City are neighboring cities, just across a bay from each other. I do have other issues with the film, but generally speaking, I'm happy I gave it a chance. Ben Affleck is a much better Batman than I thought he would be, especially after remembering how Matt Damon blew the role off as "easy" and "it's just Batman", which left me wondering if his best buddy Ben felt the same way. Thankfully, Ben clearly brought it, so a very happy Batman fan here.

I liked it as well and thought Affleck was a decent Batman. For some reason I really like Cavill as Superman and thought Man of Steel was a superb superhero film, certainly better than most of the Marvel films. I realize I'm somewhat of a minority in my views but I left the theatre with a smile on my face after Batman v Superman.

Batman vs Superman and Man of Steel were both heavily criticised for being too dark and brooding compared to the Marvel films, which I always find an odd complaint as comic book stories are generally a bit dark.I liked Man of Steel for making Superman far more interesting because the character is inherently flawed for making films about. He's an alien with all the powers, who could defeat any threat in seconds, so the comic book writers and script writers have to keep thinking up ex machinas to stop him punching a hole in the soul of the bad guy in about 3 seconds. In MoS, they made him inherit some of the less desirable traits of the humans he's been living with for 20 years, like being petty. I find it interesting that all of the post Iron Man 2 films (except Captain America films) are so highly rated, because they are all basically the same film, and they try to shoehorn in Black Widow and Hawkeye, and Falcon into the plot for no damn reason.

Don't really get why the critics hate Batman v. Superman. I actually had 2nd thoughts about seeing it, but I gave it a shot last night, and it was very good. I won't spoil anything, but the one thing that bugged me, that is not a spoiler, is that Metropolis and Gotham City are neighboring cities, just across a bay from each other. I do have other issues with the film, but generally speaking, I'm happy I gave it a chance. Ben Affleck is a much better Batman than I thought he would be, especially after remembering how Matt Damon blew the role off as "easy" and "it's just Batman", which left me wondering if his best buddy Ben felt the same way. Thankfully, Ben clearly brought it, so a very happy Batman fan here.

I liked it as well and thought Affleck was a decent Batman. For some reason I really like Cavill as Superman and thought Man of Steel was a superb superhero film, certainly better than most of the Marvel films. I realize I'm somewhat of a minority in my views but I left the theatre with a smile on my face after Batman v Superman.

Batman vs Superman and Man of Steel were both heavily criticised for being too dark and brooding compared to the Marvel films, which I always find an odd complaint as comic book stories are generally a bit dark.I liked Man of Steel for making Superman far more interesting because the character is inherently flawed for making films about. He's an alien with all the powers, who could defeat any threat in seconds, so the comic book writers and script writers have to keep thinking up ex machinas to stop him punching a hole in the soul of the bad guy in about 3 seconds. In MoS, they made him inherit some of the less desirable traits of the humans he's been living with for 20 years, like being petty. I find it interesting that all of the post Iron Man 2 films (except Captain America films) are so highly rated, because they are all basically the same film, and they try to shoehorn in Black Widow and Hawkeye, and Falcon into the plot for no damn reason.

The biggest let down for me was the final fight, I shouldn't really expand more as this would be a spoiler. The build up was great, the story was enjoyable, Lex Luthor was ok-ish. Affleck was fantastic, kudos to him.

I recently watched The Thing for the first time in years. It's an amazing film even now. Wonderfully atmospheric, actually still scary, and a wonderfully ambiguous ending. Might just be the best horror film ever.

Since it's not out on home media I'll spoiler my thoughts. Spoilers for Batman vs Superman.

Spoiler (click to show)

Great film. I really enjoyed it.

Biggest criticisms for me is I do not think they played heavily enough on how big an issue Bats has with his parents. In order to make the Martha scene work with Supes, this needed to be more heavily emphasized. That's based off my reaction and the reaction of the friend I was watching with who really didn't think it made sense.

Actually, wait, a bigger criticism really came up. They kill off a core character in heroic fashion then within 10 minutes they are implying he'll be back. Now, we all know Superman wouldn't stay dead but movies seem to be doing this with increasing regularity. Heroic sacrafice then hero pops back up 10 minutes later. I know it's a comic book movie but death has to matter at least for a while. I wouldn't even mind if they revived him in Justice League. While these movies all play together in the grand scheme, I think they should also be considered individually and hinting at Supes reviving so soon after his death just removes the impact.

They did Doomsday better than most interpretations. The Death of Superman comic was the first graphic novel I ever read (got it from the local library) and it's always held a bit of a special place as a result. I still recall Smallville doing Doomsday and it being 21 episodes of build up to a fight that lasted 10 seconds. This was a lot better. I think I'd have liked Doomsday to get more offense in. I also think I'd have preferred Doomsday in a Justice League Movie so we could have had Doomsday destroy half the league before Supes sacrifices himself. However, the choices made here weren't bad, they were just not my ideal. I did like Doomsday overall.

Lex went from annoying to actually pretty decent. Guy has a weird shaped head now we see it shaved.

The Justice League lineup isn't my favourite. I'd like to have seen Green Lantern and Martian Manhunter. I respect the decision not to have GL there as I don't think Lantern worked as a live action hero. Martian Manhunter is perhaps a little silly and would need to look substantially different from his comic books style so I guess that's fair. Just glad Flash made the cut. I had expected that the TV show would mean we wouldn't see Flash in the movies.

Overall a big thumbs up from me. Not as good as Avengers Assemble or Guardians but a pretty good film overall I thought. I'm a little bias as I have a bit of a man-crush on Affleck but I thought he was a great Batman. Cavill is excellent as Supes. I thought so after Man of Steel and I still think so. He looks like what I think a real life version of Supes would look like. Gadot pulled off WW better than expected.

Pretty boring Sunday evening so I decided to see what Netflix had to offer. Ended up watching Scream. I think last time I saw it it might have been on VHS so it's been a while.

I forgot just how damned good a film this is. It's probably the best horror/slasher type movie I've seen (I also loved Scream 4 which was basically as good but updated to a more modern setting). So many great things in this film. The plot is solid, the ability to have characters deconstruct certain aspects of horror movies then to throw those back at the audience but still have them work is great. The casting of the big Hollywood name for the start, the many, many false leads planted. The black comedy meets meta humour meets good slasher film makes for a real good experience. I really enjoyed watching this film again. I might have to check out the Netflix Scream TV series now.

I know it's not really horror. Slasher films are generally considered a separate genre I think. But if you do lump them together, this is close to being my favourite of the group. The first half of the Stephen King's It TV movie is probably my favourite horror film, and I still find that utterly creepy (I felt someone walk over my grave as I thought about it just now). The second half of the TV movie ruins the whole thing so there is that caveat.

Pretty boring Sunday evening so I decided to see what Netflix had to offer. Ended up watching Scream. I think last time I saw it it might have been on VHS so it's been a while.

I forgot just how damned good a film this is. It's probably the best horror/slasher type movie I've seen (I also loved Scream 4 which was basically as good but updated to a more modern setting). So many great things in this film. The plot is solid, the ability to have characters deconstruct certain aspects of horror movies then to throw those back at the audience but still have them work is great. The casting of the big Hollywood name for the start, the many, many false leads planted. The black comedy meets meta humour meets good slasher film makes for a real good experience. I really enjoyed watching this film again. I might have to check out the Netflix Scream TV series now.

I know it's not really horror. Slasher films are generally considered a separate genre I think. But if you do lump them together, this is close to being my favourite of the group. The first half of the Stephen King's It TV movie is probably my favourite horror film, and I still find that utterly creepy (I felt someone walk over my grave as I thought about it just now). The second half of the TV movie ruins the whole thing so there is that caveat.

The Scream TV show is fun, but a little silly because they've updated it for a younger generation. They've also tweaked it a bit to be a bit more like Halloween, and added a mythical Mike Myers type killer from the past that the killer impersonates rather than just a random ghostface killer. Sort of if Billy Loomis was some kind of celebrity murderer (it's not him though).They've also got rid of the mask from the films after Scary Movie kinda killed their effect, and have a new scarier mask that's more in line with proper horror masks like Vorhees and Myers.

Watched the Suicide Squad. Meeeeh. The characters were ok, but the storyline was almost non-existent. A witch and her brother with tentacles? Just didn't hit the sweet spot. I had the same feeling with Deadpool, great character but the villain let the movie down somehow. Oh well, maybe it's just me

Watched the Suicide Squad. Meeeeh. The characters were ok, but the storyline was almost non-existent. A witch and her brother with tentacles? Just didn't hit the sweet spot. I had the same feeling with Deadpool, great character but the villain let the movie down somehow. Oh well, maybe it's just me

Deadpool was a bit odd I thought. I really enjoyed the film. I agree though, Ajax wasn't the strongest villain. Sure, they made sure we knew he was a dick, but they didn't really make him a threat. I did enjoy the film a lot, but I thought a little more about Ajax's powers would have helped. I feel like in the movie they only tell us he can't feel pain. As superpowers go, that doesn't really seem that useful compared to turning to metal or being able to heal from just about anything.

I somewhat feel the Marvel films in general have sometimes lacked a properly strong villain who is also fleshed out. Ultron - fleshed out but never really a threat (Ultron himself that is). Ajax - fleshed out but never really a threat. Ronan the Accuser - not fleshed out but a threat. I mean, that's a minority but I felt it hampered those films a little. Though Guardians is still somehow near perfection imo.

huggybear wrote:

The Scream TV show is fun, but a little silly because they've updated it for a younger generation. They've also tweaked it a bit to be a bit more like Halloween, and added a mythical Mike Myers type killer from the past that the killer impersonates rather than just a random ghostface killer. Sort of if Billy Loomis was some kind of celebrity murderer (it's not him though).They've also got rid of the mask from the films after Scary Movie kinda killed their effect, and have a new scarier mask that's more in line with proper horror masks like Vorhees and Myers.

I'll give it a bash. Worst that can happen is I don't like it an stop watching after an episode or two. I'm fine with them changing the mask. I love Ghostface but when I think of it I kinda also think of the high on weed ghostface mask from Scary Movie (spot on about SM killing the mask). That said, me adding a TV show or movie to my Netflix list pretty much means I'll never actually watch it.

Watched the Suicide Squad. Meeeeh. The characters were ok, but the storyline was almost non-existent. A witch and her brother with tentacles? Just didn't hit the sweet spot. I had the same feeling with Deadpool, great character but the villain let the movie down somehow. Oh well, maybe it's just me

Deadpool was a bit odd I thought. I really enjoyed the film. I agree though, Ajax wasn't the strongest villain. Sure, they made sure we knew he was a dick, but they didn't really make him a threat. I did enjoy the film a lot, but I thought a little more about Ajax's powers would have helped. I feel like in the movie they only tell us he can't feel pain. As superpowers go, that doesn't really seem that useful compared to turning to metal or being able to heal from just about anything.

Yes, I agree. I see why he was the bad guy, but he was nothing special. A great superhero needs the opposite number too, a Dr Doom, a Joker or a Thanos. This guy was a bit meeeh

Just saw the Robocop remake. It's ok, and I liked Joel Kinnaman as Alex Murphy, but I just couldn't help but wonder what this movie could've been if they had gone for an R rating, which the original had (after many edits to get rid of the initial X rating it received!), instead of PG-13.

For example, Alex Murphy gets wounded. In the remake, he's hurt by a car bomb. In the original, he's blasted apart by psychopaths with shotguns, who at one point start playing games while shooting him!

Another gripe is how the ending battle is EXTREMELY underwhelming, and how I think the director missed a trick here. Earlier in the film, Robocop is training in a giant warehouse loaded with robots and the military expert in charge of them, who is equipped with a .50 caliber assault rifle, the only caliber that can penetrate Robocop's armor. The whole exercise is Robocop dealing with the robots while avoiding getting shot by the expert, whose negative attitude towards the cyborg project, and thus Robocop, let's you know that there will be a point later in the film where Robocop and this guy fight. They do eventually meet with the intent to fight, when Robocop goes after the Omnicorp CEO in their headquarters. The expert is there and, of course, Robocop can't shoot him because of the Omnicorp programming. Robocop just tries to run away, and the expert eventually gets shot from behind by Alex Murphy's former partner. Needless to say, that is a TOTAL letdown.

Right before that, however, was a battle between Robocop and three huge ED-209 drones. It was nicely done but it lacked something. That something IMO was the military expert. It would've been better to have Robocop fight the 3 drones while avoiding being shot by the expert and his .50 cal assault rifle, just like the training session from earlier in the film, and have one huge fight than to have one pretty good fight and one really pointless fight.

There were things I loved about the movie as well, such as the news segments with Samuel L. Jackson, Gary Oldman as the naive scientist, and how the filmmakers adjusted the plot to account for how outdated the concept of a cyborg is in the era of drones, but this movie could have been a lot more.

Hopefully the next one is rated R. At the moment, the two worst films of the Robocop franchises are the two that were not rated R (the other being Robocop 3).

_________________"No, there is no terrible way to win. There is only winning."Jean-Pierre Sarti

Just saw the Robocop remake. It's ok, and I liked Joel Kinnaman as Alex Murphy, but I just couldn't help but wonder what this movie could've been if they had gone for an R rating, which the original had (after many edits to get rid of the initial X rating it received!), instead of PG-13.

For example, Alex Murphy gets wounded. In the remake, he's hurt by a car bomb. In the original, he's blasted apart by psychopaths with shotguns, who at one point start playing games while shooting him!

Another gripe is how the ending battle is EXTREMELY underwhelming, and how I think the director missed a trick here. Earlier in the film, Robocop is training in a giant warehouse loaded with robots and the military expert in charge of them, who is equipped with a .50 caliber assault rifle, the only caliber that can penetrate Robocop's armor. The whole exercise is Robocop dealing with the robots while avoiding getting shot by the expert, whose negative attitude towards the cyborg project, and thus Robocop, let's you know that there will be a point later in the film where Robocop and this guy fight. They do eventually meet with the intent to fight, when Robocop goes after the Omnicorp CEO in their headquarters. The expert is there and, of course, Robocop can't shoot him because of the Omnicorp programming. Robocop just tries to run away, and the expert eventually gets shot from behind by Alex Murphy's former partner. Needless to say, that is a TOTAL letdown.

Right before that, however, was a battle between Robocop and three huge ED-209 drones. It was nicely done but it lacked something. That something IMO was the military expert. It would've been better to have Robocop fight the 3 drones while avoiding being shot by the expert and his .50 cal assault rifle, just like the training session from earlier in the film, and have one huge fight than to have one pretty good fight and one really pointless fight.

There were things I loved about the movie as well, such as the news segments with Samuel L. Jackson, Gary Oldman as the naive scientist, and how the filmmakers adjusted the plot to account for how outdated the concept of a cyborg is in the era of drones, but this movie could have been a lot more.

Hopefully the next one is rated R. At the moment, the two worst films of the Robocop franchises are the two that were not rated R (the other being Robocop 3).

I found it so funny; he goes to his little kid, knees in front of him and says: "do you want to touch it?"...

Hmmmmmm...

I didn't like it as much as the original. I need to watch it again I suppose. But the first couple of Robocop movies were far better in my opinion

It's one of those 'normal world with magic/monsters' type deals. S'Alright, but not great. Worth a watch if that's your sort of thing, but not something you'd buy on dvd to watch more than once.

The Conjuring:

This was a superb horror film. I'm normally super critical of modern horror, because it almost always fails to come close to early John Carpenter films,or Alien, which for me are absolute perfection in building tension and relies on jump scares every five minutes or so.This film however, manages to take the suspense of those sorts of films, and pair it with more modern horror tropes (instead of trying to copy which the equally great It Follows did), and the end result is amazing.

The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind:

This too was a superb film, and I'm amazed it took me so long to see it. It's a film about love that has no romance involved and is more about the close attachment to people you can have and how you can love someone without actually being in love with them. Jim Carrey is brilliant playing a tortured soul which surprised me too, as he's more known for playing weird comic characters.

Batman V Superman Ultimate Edition is a much, much better cut of that film than the cinema version was. Also, it is now 2.5 hours. That isn't too long for a movie like this, Dark Knight was about that length, as have a few of the marvel films been too. Given how much better this is, and how many little niggling plot details it clarifies or outright eliminates, why did the original actually get released like that. I liked this film as the cinema cut, but I would say this was a significant improvement. However, for those that really didn't care for the film, this isn't a cut that will change opinions (imo).

Watched Civil War last weekend too. I really like this film. One of two minor plot things, a couple of instances where the CGI looked a bit pish on Blu-ray, but overall good. I'd put it a distant second in my Marvel movies preference list. Guardians of the Galaxy is still the best imo.

After watching Batman V Supes extended cuts I kinda want to rewatch LotR Extended Editions. I understand why these had so much cut from extended to theatrical cuts - these are all over 3 hours at the cinema. However, I really like a lot of the stuff added back into the extended cuts. Not particularly plot relevant (though I did like Gandalf and co dealing with Saruman and Aragon using the palantir to call out Sauron before they head to the black gate) but made for a better home experience. Not sure I'd have liked it at the cinema, where I can't pause to go for a pee or whatever. Never have time on Sundays between F1 and NFL, so will need to do the trilogy on a Saturday. Not doing the Hobbit because I still think that being a trilogy was too much of a money grab and I don't want them getting any money off me - not sure why I feel so strongly about that for this series.

Just saw the Robocop remake. It's ok, and I liked Joel Kinnaman as Alex Murphy, but I just couldn't help but wonder what this movie could've been if they had gone for an R rating, which the original had (after many edits to get rid of the initial X rating it received!), instead of PG-13.

For example, Alex Murphy gets wounded. In the remake, he's hurt by a car bomb. In the original, he's blasted apart by psychopaths with shotguns, who at one point start playing games while shooting him!

Another gripe is how the ending battle is EXTREMELY underwhelming, and how I think the director missed a trick here. Earlier in the film, Robocop is training in a giant warehouse loaded with robots and the military expert in charge of them, who is equipped with a .50 caliber assault rifle, the only caliber that can penetrate Robocop's armor. The whole exercise is Robocop dealing with the robots while avoiding getting shot by the expert, whose negative attitude towards the cyborg project, and thus Robocop, let's you know that there will be a point later in the film where Robocop and this guy fight. They do eventually meet with the intent to fight, when Robocop goes after the Omnicorp CEO in their headquarters. The expert is there and, of course, Robocop can't shoot him because of the Omnicorp programming. Robocop just tries to run away, and the expert eventually gets shot from behind by Alex Murphy's former partner. Needless to say, that is a TOTAL letdown.

Right before that, however, was a battle between Robocop and three huge ED-209 drones. It was nicely done but it lacked something. That something IMO was the military expert. It would've been better to have Robocop fight the 3 drones while avoiding being shot by the expert and his .50 cal assault rifle, just like the training session from earlier in the film, and have one huge fight than to have one pretty good fight and one really pointless fight.

There were things I loved about the movie as well, such as the news segments with Samuel L. Jackson, Gary Oldman as the naive scientist, and how the filmmakers adjusted the plot to account for how outdated the concept of a cyborg is in the era of drones, but this movie could have been a lot more.

Hopefully the next one is rated R. At the moment, the two worst films of the Robocop franchises are the two that were not rated R (the other being Robocop 3).

I found it so funny; he goes to his little kid, knees in front of him and says: "do you want to touch it?"...

Hmmmmmm...

I didn't like it as much as the original. I need to watch it again I suppose. But the first couple of Robocop movies were far better in my opinion

For sure. As I said before, the R-rated films were the best. Just caught them again on TV this past Saturday on a movie channel that was airing the first 3 films back-to-back. SO good.

_________________"No, there is no terrible way to win. There is only winning."Jean-Pierre Sarti